Optimistic Nut Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 £6 Million seems like a lot of money to spend on a guy who is going to spend much of his time at the club on the bench, for that reason don't reckon it's Smith The reason is he won't be on the bench, he'll be starting. Which is even worse. If Allardyce sees him as a better striker than Martins, Owen & Viduka, or a better midfielder than Geremi, Barton & Emre, there's something wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Is this the start of ugly football? coud be the start of the end for this forum,is it just me or has it gone to shit over the past few weeks ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Tbh, i don't care which players Allardyce signs, i'm sure they'll play well under Big Sam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 - Problems over signings have been the lack of European football - the quality of player he's been looking at wanted Europe and could get it elsewhere Although I buy that, I have a different take on things after all we always sign the midfielders/strikers we want. I reckon our joke defence actually puts off defensive signings - joining could easily make a player part of a joke defence, destroying his career. Thus to get better defenders, we may need to first show in this forthcoming season that we are better defensively. How are we going to do that without better defenders? It would definitely be a vicious cycle to get caught in. Good man-management, higher fitness levels, increased organisation, attacking tactics and better possession would make our defence less of a joke, and make a defender believe that they can come in without becoming part of the joke. But as of yet, we cannot show that this is the case, so many defenders may choose to avoid us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jong24 Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Im pretty shocked by some of the s**** on here tonight. Big Sam is building a squad. He will want players with different attributes to play in different games. Bringing Smith in gives us different options, especially away from home. He is a better manager than we have had recently. He looks at the big picture and isn't so stupid to think that every single signing has to improve our best 11. He will pick different players in different formations against different teams. Smith will fit into one of these systems, proberbly in games away from home and against some of the better sides at home. The days of 442, pick your best 11 are long gone. It will change game by game, and Smith will be an important player. we already have "target men" in ameobi and viduka, so we don't need another, especially with Carroll waiting in the wings. we do need an extra body to cover for the wide forward positions in a 4-3-3, but i think smith would be crap in that position. bolton under sam used stelios, anelka and diouf in these positions and all three are fast, skilful and agile. smith is none of these things. as for smith playing in midfield, he's worse than all the current first-team options we have there - emre, barton, butt, geremi. so the only thing he adds is another number to the squad and if we wanted to do that we could've spent a pittance and still probably got a better player in, someone who naturally plays there. we could do with another specialist DM to support Butt, but smith's not a specialist DM as he can't read the game and distribute well enough. despite this he is feted for his guts, aggression and bizzarely his god-awful tackling. he's not an attacking midfielder cos he has no vision, no pace, little skill and doesn't even offer end product when played there. sounds like a poor man's scott parker and scott parker is crap. as for what we have lost with Dyer's departure, it's his ability to inject pace into the the number of attacking positions he can play in and signing smith does not replace this. we're worse off without this and west ham with bellamy and dyer in their side will be a better team for it. I agree but he wanted to fuck off! and as he only played a handfull of games every season........... bye, bye. Sam knows, he wants players who actually want to play for this club and if Smithy comes here, he must want to play for us. Glad to see the back of the blingmiester. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon55544 Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Is this the start of ugly football? coud be the start of the end for this forum,is it just me or has it gone to shit over the past few weeks ? Always like this, Should be back to normal on Septemeber 1st Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 NO: Smith?! What about the fucking defence?! Me: Oh don't worry about that! I've just seen Allardyce on the telly there and he's still gonna sign defenders. He's got some in mind and everything. NO: But the DEFENCE! Me: Yeah, I'm saying, he knows who he's after and he's got the money. Not a problem. NO: You're not listening. THE DEFENCE. Me: What about them? NO: We need to sign some defenders! Me: Ok, is there something wrong with you? NO: Gimme a D....*D*.....Gimme an E.... Me: Fuck off. Don't tar us all... I'm not, but I'm genuinely aghast at some of the stupidity I've encountered on here tonight. Anyway, I'm definitely going to bed now. And Gejon, I can't be arsed to reply to your last post. Allardyce has targets in mind, ok? He's the manager. You think we need two more defenders than he does. I'm gonna go with the qualified, experienced football manager on this one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 the argument that he's been at man utd playing as squad cover so must be up to a certain standard is a convincing one. but i would be more convinced if those making the argument wanted us to go out and buy the likes of fletcher, miller, djemba-djemba and kleberson too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocker Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Is this the start of ugly football? We're signing Luke Chadwick? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 coud be the start of the end for this forum,is it just me or has it gone to s*** over the past few weeks ? I think it's the time of year, mainly the transfer window. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 £6 Million seems like a lot of money to spend on a guy who is going to spend much of his time at the club on the bench, for that reason don't reckon it's Smith The reason is he won't be on the bench, he'll be starting. Which is even worse. If Allardyce sees him as a better striker than Martins, Owen & Viduka, or a better midfielder than Geremi, Barton & Emre, there's something wrong. He sees him as another good versatile player to the squad, 6m pounds isn't anything overboard tbh taking into account: The current market which is sky high. England International. Manchester United player. Can play both midfield/striker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Is this the start of ugly football? coud be the start of the end for this forum,is it just me or has it gone to s*** over the past few weeks ? Always like this, Should be back to normal on Septemeber 1st always takes a dip close season,but the last few weeks have been the lowest i've known for cack posts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ7 Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Im pretty shocked by some of the s**** on here tonight. Big Sam is building a squad. He will want players with different attributes to play in different games. Bringing Smith in gives us different options, especially away from home. He is a better manager than we have had recently. He looks at the big picture and isn't so stupid to think that every single signing has to improve our best 11. He will pick different players in different formations against different teams. Smith will fit into one of these systems, proberbly in games away from home and against some of the better sides at home. The days of 442, pick your best 11 are long gone. It will change game by game, and Smith will be an important player. we already have "target men" in ameobi and viduka, so we don't need another, especially with Carroll waiting in the wings. we do need an extra body to cover for the wide forward positions in a 4-3-3, but i think smith would be crap in that position. bolton under sam used stelios, anelka and diouf in these positions and all three are fast, skilful and agile. smith is none of these things. as for smith playing in midfield, he's worse than all the current first-team options we have there - emre, barton, butt, geremi. so the only thing he adds is another number to the squad and if we wanted to do that we could've spent a pittance and still probably got a better player in, someone who naturally plays there. we could do with another specialist DM to support Butt, but smith's not a specialist DM as he can't read the game and distribute well enough. despite this he is feted for his guts, aggression and bizzarely his god-awful tackling. he's not an attacking midfielder cos he has no vision, no pace, little skill and doesn't even offer end product when played there. sounds like a poor man's scott parker and scott parker is crap. as for what we have lost with Dyer's departure, it's his ability to inject pace into the the number of attacking positions he can play in and signing smith does not replace this. we're worse off without this and west ham with bellamy and dyer in their side will be a better team for it. Not a bad post, but I disagree. As a striker I think Smith is different to both Ameobi and Viduka. Both are target men, but are quite lazy off the ball. Smith doesnt give up, even when it seems like a lost cause. I believe he is very good off the ball and is a decent finisher. He offers something different to Ameobi and Viduka. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 I'm sure that if we can afford to splunk money on Smith, we can afford to splunk even more on defenders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jong24 Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Is this the start of ugly football? We're signing Luke Chadwick? Nah....... Jim Brennan, how Dot can face that in the morning I'll never know. Mind she's also fell out of the ugly tree too I suppose! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest goal! Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 I think we do need another central midfielder and it's not at all the fact that he's not a defender that I have a problem with, simply that he's a poor player for a ridiculous fee. Poor in midfield, poor in attack, the mackems got a better deal on Richardson imo - at least he's got a few things in his locker other than being able to kick people. This is the point most people are missing, Don't think many would complain at all getting Smith on a free or for a cheap fee as a squad player... We should be signing a specialised attacking midfielder, could have tried a swap deal for Malbranque/Boa Morte? or if we'd sorted this sooner Tuncay on a free, Appiah's price is rumoured to be #5m, Giles Barnes? Sure there are plenty more much better options than a overpriced grafter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 We're signing Luke Chadwick? Shit, that's a step too far, he's a minger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 NO: Smith?! What about the fucking defence?! Me: Oh don't worry about that! I've just seen Allardyce on the telly there and he's still gonna sign defenders. He's got some in mind and everything. NO: But the DEFENCE! Me: Yeah, I'm saying, he knows who he's after and he's got the money. Not a problem. NO: You're not listening. THE DEFENCE. Me: What about them? NO: We need to sign some defenders! Me: Ok, is there something wrong with you? NO: Gimme a D....*D*.....Gimme an E.... Me: Fuck off. Don't tar us all... I'm not, but I'm genuinely aghast at some of the stupidity I've encountered on here tonight. Anyway, I'm definitely going to bed now. And Gejon, I can't be arsed to reply to your last post. Allardyce has targets in mind, ok? He's the manager. You think we need two more defenders than he does. I'm gonna go with the qualified, experienced football manager on this one. I bet you said exactly the same thing when Roeder signed Duff and couldn't be arsed with a left back I do have a lot of faith in Allardyce but this decision is just baffling, ok fair enough if you can only see black and white he is (kind of) replacing one versatile attacking player with another but if you can actually see the bigger picture then you can see why some aren't overly excited about it either. Thats without any "OMG WE IZ NOT GOING 2 SIGN ANY DEFENDERS!!!111!!!"" which you seem to have noticed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 I'm sure that if we can afford to splunk money on Smith, we can afford to splunk even more on defenders. I don't think money is really a problem, it's Sam getting who he thinks is right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Is this the start of ugly football? We're getting Allardyce'd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 I have to say I won't be too impressed if Dyer's replacement is Smith. To compare them, both seem injury prone (though Dyer more so then Smith) and both have excellent stamina. On the positive side for Smith you have more hunger, more tenacious, better finisher (?), two years younger and will likely cost less in wages. But on the minus side he's nowhere near as quick as Dyer and has less flair. Seems like a bit of a sideways step to me personally. But if Sam wants Smith and he gets him I suppose I'll be happy that he's gotten one of his transfer targets. After all its no good us wishing our manager doesn't sign the players he wants because we don't rate them, trust in Sam! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Im pretty shocked by some of the s**** on here tonight. Big Sam is building a squad. He will want players with different attributes to play in different games. Bringing Smith in gives us different options, especially away from home. He is a better manager than we have had recently. He looks at the big picture and isn't so stupid to think that every single signing has to improve our best 11. He will pick different players in different formations against different teams. Smith will fit into one of these systems, proberbly in games away from home and against some of the better sides at home. The days of 442, pick your best 11 are long gone. It will change game by game, and Smith will be an important player. we already have "target men" in ameobi and viduka, so we don't need another, especially with Carroll waiting in the wings. we do need an extra body to cover for the wide forward positions in a 4-3-3, but i think smith would be crap in that position. bolton under sam used stelios, anelka and diouf in these positions and all three are fast, skilful and agile. smith is none of these things. as for smith playing in midfield, he's worse than all the current first-team options we have there - emre, barton, butt, geremi. so the only thing he adds is another number to the squad and if we wanted to do that we could've spent a pittance and still probably got a better player in, someone who naturally plays there. we could do with another specialist DM to support Butt, but smith's not a specialist DM as he can't read the game and distribute well enough. despite this he is feted for his guts, aggression and bizzarely his god-awful tackling. he's not an attacking midfielder cos he has no vision, no pace, little skill and doesn't even offer end product when played there. sounds like a poor man's scott parker and scott parker is crap. as for what we have lost with Dyer's departure, it's his ability to inject pace into the the number of attacking positions he can play in and signing smith does not replace this. we're worse off without this and west ham with bellamy and dyer in their side will be a better team for it. Not a bad post, but I disagree. As a striker I think Smith is different to both Ameobi and Viduka. Both are target men, but are quite lazy off the ball. Smith doesnt give up, even when it seems like a lost cause. I believe he is very good off the ball and is a decent finisher. He offers something different to Ameobi and Viduka. that is true, but i don't think that is enough to particularly distinguish himself from those two or to offer anything so different enough that we need to spend £6m on it. if we are looking for someone who is excellent off-the-ball then we can do much better than smith. while he tries hard and forages, his positioning is fairly unintelligent and limited to hunting down the ball when the opposition have it - in other words defensive situations. much better would be looking for a player who has excellent off the ball movement for attacking situations, a bellamy or anelka, who as an added bonus can also be devastating in the wide forward roles and who possess the same kind of pace as dyer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 I have to say I won't be too impressed if Dyer's replacement is Smith. On the plus side Smith is a more hungry player, more tenacious, better finisher (?), two years younger and will likely cost less in wages. But on the minus side he's nowhere near as quick as Dyer and has less flair. They're the main differences I can see. As for similarities, both seem to be injury prone, though perhaps Smith less so then Dyer, and both have excellent stamina. Seems like a bit of a sideways step to me personally. But if Sam wants Smith and he gets him I suppose I'll be happy that he's gotten one of his transfer targets. After all its no good us wishing our manager doesn't sign the players he wants because we don't rate them, trust in Sam! How's Smith injury prone, he had a horrific injury that wasn't down to his body unlike Dyer who pulls every muscle going, i won't go into detail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 £5m for Heskey and £2m for Faye would be better than £6m on Smith if work ethic, graft, etc. is what we're after. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 always takes a dip close season,but the last few weeks have been the lowest i've known for cack posts. It has been shit because people were probably expecting too much after the sale of the club, add to that a lack of information from the club and shit stirring in the press, some people seemed unable to cope with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now